The Observer Is the Observed
El observador es lo observado
A question about Krishnamurti's teaching that "the observer is the observed," and whether the dream analogy can help bridge the intellectual understanding of non-duality with direct experience.
The Observer Is the Observed
A question about Krishnamurti's teaching that "the observer is the observed," and whether the dream analogy can help bridge the intellectual understanding of non-duality with direct experience.
Krishnamurti said the observer is the observed. I understand non-duality quite well, intellectually I mean, but this world, this big reality, no. Can we use a dream analogy to comprehend it more easily?
Why do you want to use a dream analogy?
In the dream analogy, when I am seeing an apple, it is not like the apple existed independently and then I see it. The perception of the apple, the "me," and the seeing of the apple all come simultaneously. So it is one. There is no separate, independent existence.
The "me" as thought
The key there is that you're referring to "the apple and me," but what you're calling "me" is a thought. They do appear simultaneously, the "me" and the apple, but what you're referring to as "me" is thoughts.
So it is a consciousness which is aware of "me" and which is aware of the apple.
Yes, but then you're referring to consciousness also as a thought, a concept. That way of thinking about it, of analyzing it, might be helpful, but it could also be a dead end, a trap, because you're referring to consciousness. It could be helpful, but consciousness can become another subtle thought. What is consciousness?
The fact which is aware.
Yes, and at the same time, it is everything that is. Those are not two. The awareness of the apple, which is what you're trying to refer to as "me" or "consciousness," is not something appearing simultaneously with the apple. The thought of "me" is. The concept "consciousness" is.
I think where you're getting trapped or confused has to do with the fact that there is an object of thought that you refer to as "me." You're saying, referring to Krishnamurti: here's the thought of "me," that's the observer; here's the apple, that's the observed. And the observer is the observed. Sure, they're not separate. They appear simultaneously. But you still experience them as two separate things in the space of experience, because you're referring to an object thought and an object apple: an object "I," an object "apple."
The emptiness of self
But still, that is the...
That paradox is the emptiness of self. That which is seeing, that which we refer to as awareness or consciousness (depending on how we define it), is not located in any place and is not separate from the apple. The apple appearing is the apple appearing. There isn't an observer appearing or being aware of the apple.
The confusion is the subtle concept of "I" and yet the identification with it. Now, in this practice it can be useful to become identified with an observer, with consciousness. It can be useful as a vehicle to separate from thoughts and the sensations of the body, to disidentify from all thoughts and sensations. But it is actually still a thought.
In everyday life, what they are saying is: what I am seeing, what I am perceiving, what I am hearing, I am the sensation. It is something like what the Bhagavad Gita says.
Yes, but the key is to see that that which you're calling "I" is not what you are. What changes is the realization about that which we call "I." It's not that "I" change because I now become the apple, because I become the experience. It's that I realize that which I was calling "I" is not what I am. Then I can no longer differentiate from everything that is appearing, or identify as separate. That's why the point to see is that which you call "I" is a thought, and that's why it appears that there is a separation between the "I" and the apple.
Observer as empty seeing
When Krishnamurti is saying "the observer is the observed," the observer is clear. What he meant by observer is consciousness.
I can't speak for him, but it's pointing to that which knows experience. You could also define consciousness that way. You could define it as "empty seeing." It's important to be careful, because the word "observer" makes it look like there is a point looking out. That's what the word invokes. I prefer "empty seeing," because there is nothing there; it's empty. And yet seeing is this knowing.
But it's still the language. There's no way to use language without it inferring there is a seeing and that which is seen. You have that problem again. That's why Krishnamurti joins them: the observer is the observed, the seer is the seeing.
"I am knowing"
I went to a retreat, and the teacher asked, "What am I?" The answer given was: "I am knowing." But I never understood what "I am knowing" means.
Do you understand it now?
Not quite.
That which knows experience, that which is seeing: these are just words. You can be flexible with the words "knowing," "seeing," "being," "perceiving." "Perceiving" tends to limit to a subset of experience, depending on how you define perception and sensation. You could say you are that which knows. But you also are what is known. So "I am knowing" would mean: I am the hearing, I am the seeing, I am the thinking.
Yes. And when there is no thinking, hearing, seeing, or perceiving, you still are knowing: knowing yourself, knowing which knows knowing.
There is no need for something to be experienced for that to be.
The words "I am the awareness," when they are saying "I am knowing," it is the same as "I am the awareness," "I am the consciousness."
Knowing without experience
That which knows, yes. We can define those words to be synonyms as a way of communicating, or we can differentiate them. Let's assume we're using those words as the same. That's valid, because right now you are experiencing, and you know you're experiencing. That which knows you're experiencing is what you are.
But there is no need for experience in order to know. And then it can be seen that experience is also the knowing. The known is also the knowing. The observer is the observed. Because it arises from that knowing. The arising can pause and the knowing remains. The arising begins again, but it is self emerging from that knowing. It is, in a sense, projected onto itself, by itself.
Thank you.
You're welcome.